Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.08026531 = product of:
  0.16053063 = sum of:
    0.16053063 = sum of:
      0.08961591 = weight(_text_:r in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08961591 = score(doc=4992,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.5172279 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
      0.07091471 = weight(_text_:22 in 4992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07091471 = score(doc=4992,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4992, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4992)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

14. 2.2012 12:53:22

0.0542014 = product of:
  0.1084028 = sum of:
    0.1084028 = sum of:
      0.065853976 = weight(_text_:r in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.065853976 = score(doc=2558,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.38008332 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 2558) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=2558,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2558, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2558)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper shows that the present evaluation methods in information retrieval (basically recall R and precision P and in some cases fallout F ) lack universal comparability in the sense that their values depend on the generality of the IR problem. A solution is given by using all "parts" of the database, including the non-relevant documents and also the not-retrieved documents. It turns out that the solution is given by introducing the measure M being the fraction of the not-retrieved documents that are relevant (hence the "miss" measure). We prove that - independent of the IR problem or of the IR action - the quadruple (P,R,F,M) belongs to a universal IR surface, being the same for all IR-activities. This universality is then exploited by defining a new measure for evaluation in IR allowing for unbiased comparisons of all IR results. We also show that only using one, two or even three measures from the set {P,R,F,M} necessary leads to evaluation measures that are non-universal and hence not capable of comparing different IR situations.

Date

14. 8.2004 19:17:22

0.05023537 = sum of:
  0.031224964 = product of:
    0.12489986 = sum of:
      0.12489986 = weight(_text_:authors in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12489986 = score(doc=4384,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.019010404 = product of:
    0.03802081 = sum of:
      0.03802081 = weight(_text_:r in 4384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03802081 = score(doc=4384,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 4384, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4384)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

One aim of science evaluation studies is to determine quantitatively the contribution of different players (authors, departments, countries) to the whole system. This information is then used to study the evolution of the system, for instance to gauge the results of special national or international programs. Taking articles as our basic data, we want to determine the exact relative contribution of each coauthor or each country. These numbers are brought together to obtain country scores, or department scores, etc. It turns out, as we will show in this article, that different scoring methods can yield totally different rankings. Conseqeuntly, a ranking between countries, universities, research groups or authors, based on one particular accrediting methods does not contain an absolute truth about their relative importance

0.040284816 = product of:
  0.08056963 = sum of:
    0.08056963 = sum of:
      0.03802081 = weight(_text_:r in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03802081 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
      0.042548824 = weight(_text_:22 in 7659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042548824 = score(doc=7659,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18328895 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 7659, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7659)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Journal of information science. 22(1996) no.3, S.165-170

0.037427098 = sum of:
  0.015023118 = product of:
    0.06009247 = sum of:
      0.06009247 = weight(_text_:authors in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06009247 = score(doc=5226,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.022403978 = product of:
    0.044807956 = sum of:
      0.044807956 = weight(_text_:r in 5226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044807956 = score(doc=5226,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05234091 = queryNorm
          0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 5226, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5226)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aims to inform researchers about metrics so that they become aware of the evaluative techniques being applied to their scientific output. Understanding these concepts will help them during their funding initiatives, and in hiring and tenure. The book not only describes what indicators do (or are designed to do, which is not always the same thing), but also gives precise mathematical formulae so that indicators can be properly understood and evaluated. Metrics have become a critical issue in science, with widespread international discussion taking place on the subject across scientific journals and organizations. As researchers should know the publication-citation context, the mathematical formulae of indicators being used by evaluating committees and their consequences, and how such indicators might be misused, this book provides an ideal tome on the topic. Provides researchers with a detailed understanding of bibliometric indicators and their applications. Empowers researchers looking to understand the indicators relevant to their work and careers. Presents an informed and rounded picture of bibliometrics, including the strengths and shortcomings of particular indicators. Supplies the mathematics behind bibliometric indicators so they can be properly understood. Written by authors with longstanding expertise who are considered global leaders in the field of bibliometrics

0.022178805 = product of:
  0.04435761 = sum of:
    0.04435761 = product of:
      0.08871522 = sum of:
        0.08871522 = weight(_text_:r in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08871522 = score(doc=1965,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.51202947 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fundamental mathematical properties of rhythm sequences are studied. In particular, a set of three axioms for valid rhythm indicators is proposed, and it is shown that the R-indicator satisfies only two out of three but that the R-indicator satisfies all three. This fills a critical, logical gap in the study of these indicator sequences. Matrices leading to a constant R-sequence are called baseline matrices. They are characterized as matrices with constant w-year diachronous impact factors. The relation with classical impact factors is clarified. Using regression analysis matrices with a rhythm sequence that is on average equal to 1 (smaller than 1, larger than 1) are characterized.

0.022079382 = product of:
  0.044158764 = sum of:
    0.044158764 = product of:
      0.17663506 = sum of:
        0.17663506 = weight(_text_:authors in 1878) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17663506 = score(doc=1878,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.7402591 = fieldWeight in 1878, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1878)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article, for any group of authors, we define three different h-indices. First, there is the successive h-index h2 based on the ranked list of authors and their h-indices h1 as defined by Schubert (2007). Next, there is the h-index hP based on the ranked list of authors and their number of publications. Finally, there is the h-index hC based on the ranked list of authors and their number of citations. We present formulae for these three indices in Lotkaian informetrics from which it also follows that h2 < hp < hc. We give a concrete example of a group of 167 authors on the topic optical flow estimation. Besides these three h-indices, we also calculate the two-by-two Spearman rank correlation coefficient and prove that these rankings are significantly related.

0.021254279 = product of:
  0.042508557 = sum of:
    0.042508557 = product of:
      0.085017115 = sum of:
        0.085017115 = weight(_text_:r in 2011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085017115 = score(doc=2011,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.49068546 = fieldWeight in 2011, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In an earlier paper [Egghe, L. (2004). A universal method of information retrieval evaluation: the "missing" link M and the universal IR surface. Information Processing and Management, 40, 21-30] we showed that, given an IR system, and if P denotes precision, R recall, F fallout and M miss (re-introduced in the paper mentioned above), we have the following relationship between P, R, F and M: P/(1-P)*(1-R)/R*F/(1-F)*(1-M)/M = 1. In this paper we prove the (more difficult) converse: given any four rational numbers in the interval ]0, 1[ satisfying the above equation, then there exists an IR system such that these four numbers (in any order) are the precision, recall, fallout and miss of this IR system. As a consequence we show that any three rational numbers in ]0, 1[ represent any three measures taken from precision, recall, fallout and miss of a certain IR system. We also show that this result is also true for two numbers instead of three.

0.018214563 = product of:
  0.036429126 = sum of:
    0.036429126 = product of:
      0.1457165 = sum of:
        0.1457165 = weight(_text_:authors in 1759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1457165 = score(doc=1759,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.61068267 = fieldWeight in 1759, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1759)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review. Design/methodology/approach - The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures. Findings - Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers. Originality/value - The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.

0.015612482 = product of:
  0.031224964 = sum of:
    0.031224964 = product of:
      0.12489986 = sum of:
        0.12489986 = weight(_text_:authors in 1006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12489986 = score(doc=1006,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 1006, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1006)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Fractional frequency distributions of, for example, authors with a certain (fractional) number of papers are very irregular and, therefore, not easy to model or to explain. This article gives a first attempt to this by assuming two simple Lotka laws (with exponent 2): one for the number of authors with n papers (total count here) and one for the number of papers with n authors, n E N. Based an an earlier made convolution model of Egghe, interpreted and reworked now for discrete scores, we are able to produce theoretical fractional frequency distributions with only one parameter, which are in very close agreement with the practical ones as found in a large dataset produced earlier by Rao. The article also shows that (irregular) fractional frequency distributions are a consequence of Lotka's law, and are not examples of breakdowns of this famous historical law.

0.015612482 = product of:
  0.031224964 = sum of:
    0.031224964 = product of:
      0.12489986 = sum of:
        0.12489986 = weight(_text_:authors in 2366) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12489986 = score(doc=2366,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 2366, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2366)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Lotka's law was formulated to describe the number of authors with a certain number of publications. Empirical results (Morris & Goldstein, 2007) indicate that Lotka's law is also valid if one counts the number of publications of coauthor pairs. This article gives a simple model proving this to be true, with the same Lotka exponent, if the number of coauthored papers is proportional to the number of papers of the individual coauthors. Under the assumption that this number of coauthored papers is more than proportional to the number of papers of the individual authors (to be explained in the article), we can prove that the size-frequency function of coauthor pairs is Lotkaian with an exponent that is higher than that of the Lotka function of individual authors, a fact that is confirmed in experimental results.

0.014719588 = product of:
  0.029439176 = sum of:
    0.029439176 = product of:
      0.1177567 = sum of:
        0.1177567 = weight(_text_:authors in 81) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1177567 = score(doc=81,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.23861247 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.49350607 = fieldWeight in 81, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=81)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Papers written by several authors can be classified according to the countries of the author affiliations. The empirical part of this paper consists of two datasets. One dataset consists of 1,035 papers retrieved via the search "pedagog*" in the years 2004 and 2005 (up to October) in Academic Search Elite which is a case where phi(m) = the number of papers with m =1, 2,3 ... authors is decreasing, hence most of the papers have a low number of authors. Here we find that #, m = the number of times a country occurs j times in a m-authored paper, j =1, ..., m-1 is decreasing and that # m, m is much higher than all the other #j, m values. The other dataset consists of 3,271 papers retrieved via the search "enzyme" in the year 2005 (up to October) in the same database which is a case of a non-decreasing phi(m): most papers have 3 or 4 authors and we even find many papers with a much higher number of authors. In this case we show again that # m, m is much higher than the other #j, m values but that #j, m is not decreasing anymore in j =1, ..., m-1, although #1, m is (apart from # m, m) the largest number amongst the #j,m. The combinatorial part gives a proof of the fact that #j,m decreases for j = 1, m-1, supposing that all cases are equally possible. This shows that the first dataset is more conform with this model than the second dataset. Explanations for these findings are given. From the data we also find the (we think: new) distribution of number of papers with n =1, 2,3,... countries (i.e. where there are n different countries involved amongst the m (a n) authors of a paper): a fast decreasing function e.g. as a power law with a very large Lotka exponent.

0.013442385 = product of:
  0.02688477 = sum of:
    0.02688477 = product of:
      0.05376954 = sum of:
        0.05376954 = weight(_text_:r in 4994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05376954 = score(doc=4994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.3103367 = fieldWeight in 4994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012673602 = product of:
  0.025347205 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = product of:
      0.05069441 = sum of:
        0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05069441 = score(doc=647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012673602 = product of:
  0.025347205 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = product of:
      0.05069441 = sum of:
        0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 3267) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05069441 = score(doc=3267,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 3267, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3267)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012673602 = product of:
  0.025347205 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = product of:
      0.05069441 = sum of:
        0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 4385) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05069441 = score(doc=4385,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 4385, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4385)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012673602 = product of:
  0.025347205 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = product of:
      0.05069441 = sum of:
        0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 6759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05069441 = score(doc=6759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 6759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.012673602 = product of:
  0.025347205 = sum of:
    0.025347205 = product of:
      0.05069441 = sum of:
        0.05069441 = weight(_text_:r in 695) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05069441 = score(doc=695,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.29258826 = fieldWeight in 695, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=695)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.011201989 = product of:
  0.022403978 = sum of:
    0.022403978 = product of:
      0.044807956 = sum of:
        0.044807956 = weight(_text_:r in 4217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044807956 = score(doc=4217,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.25861394 = fieldWeight in 4217, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper studies mathematical properties of h-index sequences as developed by Liang [Liang, L. (2006). h-Index sequence and h-index matrix: Constructions and applications. Scientometrics, 69(1), 153-159]. For practical reasons, Liming studies such sequences where the time goes backwards while it is more logical to use the time going forward (real career periods). Both type of h-index sequences are studied here and their interrelations are revealed. We show cases where these sequences are convex, linear and concave. We also show that, when one of the sequences is convex then the other one is concave, showing that the reverse-time sequence, in general, cannot be used to derive similar properties of the (difficult to obtain) forward time sequence. We show that both sequences are the same if and only if the author produces the same number of papers per year. If the author produces an increasing number of papers per year, then Liang's h-sequences are above the "normal" ones. All these results are also valid for g- and R-sequences. The results are confirmed by the h-, g- and R-sequences (forward and reverse time) of the author.

0.011089402 = product of:
  0.022178805 = sum of:
    0.022178805 = product of:
      0.04435761 = sum of:
        0.04435761 = weight(_text_:r in 2157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04435761 = score(doc=2157,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17326194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05234091 = queryNorm
            0.25601473 = fieldWeight in 2157, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)